Cover Image

Not for Sale



View/Hide Left Panel
Click for next page ( 102


The National Academies | 500 Fifth St. N.W. | Washington, D.C. 20001
Copyright © National Academy of Sciences. All rights reserved.
Terms of Use and Privacy Statement



Below are the first 10 and last 10 pages of uncorrected machine-read text (when available) of this chapter, followed by the top 30 algorithmically extracted key phrases from the chapter as a whole.
Intended to provide our own search engines and external engines with highly rich, chapter-representative searchable text on the opening pages of each chapter. Because it is UNCORRECTED material, please consider the following text as a useful but insufficient proxy for the authoritative book pages.

Do not use for reproduction, copying, pasting, or reading; exclusively for search engines.

OCR for page 101
Appendix A Major Shoreline Protection Measures GENERAL MEASURES TAKEN IN CAPE HATTERAS VICINITY 1 930 1966 1 967 1 969 One thousand feet (300 meters) of interlocking steel sheet pile groins were installed along the beach. The Civilian Conservation Corps built a major bar- rier sand dune system along the entire length of Hatteras Island. Installation of additional sheet-pile groins. Three hundred thousand cubic yards (230,000 cubic meters) of sand was pumped from Pamlico Sound onto the beach in front of Buxton, north of the lighthouse. A revetment of large nylon sand-filled bags was placed in front of the lighthouse. The U.S. Navy built three reinforced concrete groins to protect the U.S. Navy facility and the lighthouse. Data from MTMA Engineers, 1985. Associates, 1980; U.S. Army Corps of 101

OCR for page 101
102 A ppend ix A 1971 Two hundred thousand cubic yards ( 150,000 cubic meters) of sand was dredged from a borrow pit at Cape Hatteras to beach at Buxton Motel area. 1973 Beach nourishment again was undertaken; 1,250,000 cubic yards (960,000 cubic meters) of sand was dredged from a pit at Cape Hatteras to the beach north of the U.S. Navy facility. 1974 Major repairs made to the 1969 groins. 1980 Emergency measures were implemented to protect the lighthouse foundation. These included a land ward sheetpile extension of the lighthouse groin and emplacement of rubble riprap at the foot of this extension. 1981 Offshore artificial seagrass was installed. 1982 More extensive artificial seagrass was installed. 1982 Seven hundred sandbags were placed around the base of the lighthouse. 1983 A protective scour-mat apron was installed at the toe (landward end) of the lighthouse groin. 1984 A third, even larger installation of artificial sea grass was implemented. THE NPS DECISION PROCESS AND THE VALUE OF OPEN PLANNING Since 1980, the National Park Service has sought a long- term, technologically feasible, and cost-effective solution to the problem of preserving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse. In the process, it has shifted its focus from piecemeal stopgaps to larger-scale, more permanent options. Numerous federal, state, and private entities have participated in the quest. The documentary legacy of this process has been prodigious, including professional studies, workshop reports, interagency

OCR for page 101
Shoreline Protection Measures 103 communication ant! agreements, resolutions, permits, and appropriations. NPS diligently undertook efforts to obtain a diversity of opinions and expertise. On July 29, 1982, on the basis of an environmental assessment, NPS announced its preference for the seawall/revetment option. This was adopted as a final decision on November 26, 1985; Congress appropriated $4,070,000 to preserve the lighthouse October 30, 1986 (H.S. Res. 738, P.L. 99-591). The relocation option initially was discussed by MTMA Associates ( 1980) report and briefly in the environmental assessment (U.S. National Park Service, 1982~. After the April 1, 1982, NPS workshop at Manteo, North Carolina, relo- cation was dropped from further consideration in favor of the seawall/revetment. New information from various sources provided the impetus to reexamine the various options, and the desire to reexamine the options led to the formation of this committee. NPS is to be commended for its willingness to reconsider its earlier decision. The value of public input to agency decision-making, although time-consuming and even abrasive at times, is thus demonstrated. ACTIONS TO PROTECT CAPE HATTERAS LIGHTHOUSE SINCE 1980 October 28. 1980 Emergency protective measures for Cape Hatteras Lighthouse were initiated after a severe storm in March 1980. The storm destroyed the ruins of the original lighthouse and flanked the beach anchor point of the southern groin (near- est the current lighthouse). This allowed storm-driven or high-tide waves to flow between the steel and concrete jetty and the softer sand dunes and erode sand. The protective measures included: Placing rubble at the base of the eroding escarpment nearest the lighthouse. Extending the southern groin 150 feet (45.72 meters) landward.

OCR for page 101
104 A ppend ix A Placing additional sandbags. Six to 24 months of protection were expected, during which alternative long-term protective measures were to be evalua- ted' a course of action selected, and funding for implementa- tion obtained. December 2. 1980 NPS presented five options to preserve the lighthouse for 100 years (MTMA Associates, 1980~: Relocation Full revetment Partial revetment and groinfield with beach nourish- ment Groinfield rehabilitation with beach nourishment Beach nourishment March 5. 1981 After evaluating the options, the North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission determined that moving the lighthouse was the approach most consistent with state guidelines. The approach preferred next was seawall construction (Benson, 1981~. Mav 5. 1981 Five hundred units of artificial seagrass were installed in front of the lighthouse as a demonstration project by the manufacturer. This probably why not effective in building up the beach (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984~. JUIY 15. 1981 A letter from NPS was sent to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers requesting assistance in developing a long-term (30-50 year) protection plan (Baker, 1981~. December 16. 1981 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed analyses of two protection alternatives: a stabilization scheme involving con- struction of four inshore breakwaters and a southern terminal groin, and construction of a seawall/revetment (Hughes, 1981~.

OCR for page 101
Shoreline Protection Measures January 18. 1982 The North Carolina Department Community Develooment pointed 105 of Natural Resources and ~ out to NPS that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers review only addressed alternatives within its purview to execute and urged NPS to develop com- parable information on other alternatives (Flourney, 1982~. Auril 1~ 1982 NPS held a workshop in Manteo, NC, to obtain public input on how to protect the lighthouse. The workshop conclusions were that: . The proposals were difficult to evaluate because of the range in quality and detail. NPS should develop selec- tion criteria and ask again for public input. Given the three NPS constraints--saving the lighthouse, a permanent solution, and no major recurring costs-- short-term interim protective measures would be needed. A basal revetment was favored as the long- term solution. Relocation was opposed because it addressed only , safety of the lighthouse and not the problem of shoreline erosion. The MTMA feasibility study was not considered reliable. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers proposed another feasibility study. ~ ~ ~, ~. May 31. 1982 A study by Lee Wan & Associates, Inc. was completed for NPS (Lee Wan & Associates, 1982~. July 29. 1982 NPS issued an environmental assessment and requested com- ments by August 31, 1982. NPS also proposed seawall/ revetment as the preferred alternative (National Park Service, 1 982~. August 27. 1982 The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission passed a resolution supporting the NPS preferred alternative to build a seawall, based on the NPS environmental assessment and dis- cussions with NPS personnel, which indicated potential prob

OCR for page 101
106 Appendix A lems with moving the lighthouse (Chesson, 1982~. Commis- sion staff were informed that "the lighthouse is a double- walled structure which makes a moving alternative particu- larly difficult and hazardous to the structure" (Benson, 1982~. In a memo accompanying the resolution, relocation was ruled out on the basis of projected cost and time efficiency (Wil- lett, 1982~. The commission indicated that final plans would be reviewed for consistency with state plans, as required under federal law (Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972~. September 13. 1982 NPS designated funds to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers for protection work, including testing at the Waterways Experiment Station and monitoring the seagrass to determine its effectiveness as an interim measure (Guse, 1982~. September and October. 1982 Additional artificial seagrass was installed (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1984~. JU1Y 1984 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Report on Gen- eraltizedt Monitoring of Seascape Installation at Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, North Carolina (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1 984~. Octobers 1984 More artificial seagrass was installed (Rogers, 1986). April 9. 1985 NPS requested a declaratory ruling from The North Carolina Coastal Resources Commision on the consistency of the sea- wall with the state coastal management program. The com- mission held that relocation and beach nourishment were pre- ferred under the coastal management regulations ~ 15 NCAC 7H .0308(a)(1)] but concluded that a seawall was consistent with state policy, because there would be no adverse effect on marine productivity, it would allow natural erosion pro- cesses to continue, there would be no adverse effect on adjacent property, and there was a "clear statement of need for structural rather than nonstructural erosion control meth- ods." The seawall plan also was consistent with the Dare

OCR for page 101
Shoreline Protection Measures 107 County Land Use Plan (North Carolina Coastal Resources Commission, 1985.) JU1Y 3. 1985 The Department of the Army (DOA) issued a public notice that NPS applied for a permit under section 404(b) of the Clean Water Act to place fill material in the Atlantic for long-term shoreline protection in conjunction with the sea- wall plan. Approval of the DOA permit hinged on required state and local permits and authorizations, which include: Water quality certification (Clean Water Act Section 401 ~ from the NC Division of Environmental Manage- ment Issuance of a dredge/fill permit from NC Division of Coastal Management [NC General Statute 113-229] State permit (unspecified type) from NC Division of Coastal Management or its delegates Easement to fill or occupy state-owned submerged land (NC General Statute 143-341~4), 146-6, 146-11, and 146- 12) from NC Department of Administration and NC Council of State Submission of Erosion and Sedimentation Control Plan to Land Quality Section, Division of Land Resources (State Sedimentation Pollution Control Act of 1973 (NC General Statute 113 A-50-66 (Warren, 1985~. Sentember 9. 1985 A letter from the North Carolina Department of Natural Resources and Community Development to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers commented on the public notice and con- curred that the project was consistent with the North Caro- lina Coastal Management Program, providing that temporary material and debris were removed at completion. The letter also requested that NPS contact the following offices 2 weeks before beginning the project to ensure that critical fisheries resources and turtle-nesting activities would not be affected adversely: . . . . -

OCR for page 101
108 A ppend ix A Mr. Paul Raymond, National Marine Fisheries Endan- gered Species Branch (813~893-3366 Mr. John Friddel, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Endangered Species (704~259-0321 Mr. Harrell Johnson, N.C. Division of Marine Fisheries (919~338-1558 (Rhodes, 1985~. According to Mr. Hugh Heine at DOA, the necessary authori- zations (listed above) were obtained, and a permit was issued (personal communication, November 4, 1987~. Novembers 1985 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers completed Seawall and Revetment Design for Long-Term Protection of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse, N.C. for NPS (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1985~. November 26 NPS announced selection of the seawall revetment alternative and found no significant impact (NPS, 1985b). March 1 986 A comprehensive structural analysis was completed by Has- brouck Hunderman Architects et al. for NPS (Hasbrouck Hun- derman Architects et al., 1986b). JU1Y. 1986 ~ comprehensive preservation program was completed by Has- brouck Hunderman Architects et al. for NPS. (Vertical cracks were found in interior masonry wall.) (Hasbrouck Hunderman Architects et al., 1986a.) August 17 1986 Dr. Orrin Pilkey of Duke University claimed a wall would seal the fate of the lighthouse, because it would enhance erosion, ensuring that the lighthouse eventually would fall (Minehart, 1986~.

OCR for page 101
Shoreline Protection Measures December 29~ 1986 A letter from the Move the Lighthouse Committee to Secre- tary of the Interior Donald Hodel requested a review of the decision-making process that led to selection of the seawall/ revetment option for saving Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (Fis- chetti, 1986). 109 Februarv. 1987 The Move the Lighthouse Committee released Move It or Lose It: The Case for Relocation of the Cape Hatteras Lighthouse (Fischetti et al., 1987~. March(?!~ 1987 Limberios Vallianos, coastal engineer with the Army Corps of Engineers, replied to the Move the Lighthouse Committee report (Vallianos, 1987~. Aoril 10~ 1987 Charles Thomas (former chief engineer on Admiral Hyman Rickover's engineering staff) advised Tom Hartman, superin- tendent, Cape Hatteras National Seashore, that "the risks of catastrophic structural failure of the lighthouse are so great that relocation must not be attempted" (Thomas, 1987~. June. 1 987 The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the Move the Light- house commented to NPS on the work statement for assess- ment of the lighthouse preservation options. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers recommended an engineering/cost study of the relocation option comparable to the analysis done for revetment. (Vithalani, 1987; Fischetti, 1987.) Aprils 1 987 NPS requested that the National Academy of Sciences evalu- ate the options (U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1987~.

OCR for page 101